[lliamander]

The NYT has previously respected the anonymity of others, including an ISIS fighter[0]. That the NYT has a blanket policy about publishing real names is possible, but certainly suspicious.

> Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience."

True, but a big part of why Scott has such a big audience is his willingness to write about the problems of cancel culture, and cancel culture would almost certainly come after him if he is doxxed.

[0]https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/1275446136375898114

[panabee]

one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision.

in the ISIS case, the article likely doesn't happen without the fighter's cooperation, so the writer must defer to the subject or risk losing the story.

in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.

[lliamander]

> one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision.

There's no indication that the cited policy allows for such discretion.

> in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.

Does that also apply to Virgil Texas of "Chapo Trap House"[1]?

It's clear that the NYT does not, in practice, have a blanket policy against pseudonyms. The writer's claims that it does are therefore at least somewhat BS. Violating the privacy of a practicing mental health professional who is obligated to hide his personal life from his patients is a pretty serious mistake. This could all be some sort of bureaucratic bungling, but as the saying goes: mistakes of this magnitude are rarely innocent.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...

EDIT: see this as well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23619347

More and more evidence against such a policy, and for the theory that this is a hit piece.

EDIT2: NYT protecting a therapist's identity in 2015 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144

[panabee]

to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.

it's obvious that doxxing scott alexander is not necessary for this article. in fact, it's actually quite dangerous given the history of threats.

[lliamander]

> to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice.

Oh, I understand. And that would be my general default assumption as well. Scott also doesn't assume malice.

It's just that some form of the "malice" interpretation is looking increasingly likely.

[rndgermandude]

It got malicious at the point where Scott ALexander pointed out the issues to the reporter and the reporter still refused to protect his identity.